Elsevier

Injury

Volume 43, Issue 6, June 2012, Pages 706-711
Injury

Review
Occurrence of secondary fracture around intramedullary nails used for trochanteric hip fractures: A systematic review of 13,568 patients

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.027Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

A sliding hip screw (SHS) is currently the treatment of choice for trochanteric hip fractures, largely due to the low incidence of complications. An alternative treatment is the use of intramedullary proximal femoral nails. Unfortunately these implants have been associated with a risk of later fracture around the implant. The aim of this study was to see if any improvements have been made to the current intramedullary nails, to reduce the incidence of secondary fracture around the distal tip of the nail.

Methods

We analysed data related to 13,568 patients from 89 studies, focusing on the incidence of post operative secondary femoral shaft fracture following the use of intramedullary nails in the fixation of trochanteric hip fractures.

Results

The overall reported incidence of secondary fracture around the nail was 1.7%. The incidence of fracture has reduced in the 3rd generation Gamma nails when compared to the older Gamma nail (1.7% versus 2.6%, p value 0.03). However, the incidence of secondary fracture in the 3rd generation Gamma nails is still significantly higher than the other brands of short nail (1.7% versus 0.7%, p value 0.0005). Long nails had a slight tendency towards a lower risk of fracture although the difference was not statistically significant (1.1% versus 1.7%, p value 0.28). There was a significantly lower risk of fracture for those nails with a biaxial fixation as opposed to uniaxial fixation (0.6% versus 1.9%, p value <0.0001).

Conclusion

Secondary fracture around a proximal femoral nail is one of the most significant of fracture healing complications, and this study suggests that continuing design changes to this method of fixation has reduced the risk of this complication occurring.

Introduction

A proximal femoral fracture or hip fracture is the most common reason for admission to an acute orthopaedic ward.1 Trochanteric hip fractures (AO classification 31-A) account for approximately half of all these hip fractures. The current evidence recommends the use of a sliding hip screw and plate (SHS) because of the low incidence of complications and failure, and high rates of fracture union.2 Because of perceived biomechanical advantages of intramedullary fixation, with a shorter leaver arm, intramedullary nails have been used with increased frequency for the fixation of trochanteric hip fractures.3, 4

Concerns have been raised that the incidence of fracture healing complications is increased for the intramedullary nails used in the fixation of trochanteric hip fractures in comparison to the more traditional SHS fixation.2 No difference in the incidence of cut-out of the femoral neck screw has been shown between the intramedullary nails and SHS's, and intramedullary nails avoid the complication of detachment of the plate from the femur. Other complications occurring in both groups include non-union, avascular necrosis of the femoral head, implant breakage and disassembly of the implant. However, intramedullary nails incur the risk of secondary fracture around the distal tip of the implant, which is rare after a SHS fixation with a reported incidence in a summary of randomised trials of 2/1645 (0.1%).2

The first widely available intramedullary device used in the fixation of hip fractures was the Gamma nail (Howmedica/Stryker) which was introduced in the 1980s. Design modifications have been made to this nail since then such that currently versions include the Gamma 3 nail, Trochanteric Gamma nail and the Gamma AP (Asia Pacific) nail. A recent study of the Gamma nail has suggested that the risk of secondary femoral shaft fractures is no longer increased.5 A number of other designs of proximal femoral nails have been introduced from different manufacturers. These include the intramedullary hip screw (Smith and Nephew), Proximal femoral nail (Synthes), Proximal femoral nail anti-rotation (Synthes), Trochanteric fixation nail (Synthes), Holland nail (Biomet), Targon PF nail (Aesculap) and the Ace trochanteric nail (DePuy/Johnson & Johnson).

Because of the severity of this complication, which leads to either a prolonged period of traction, or revision surgery, and its possible reduction with the modification of the nail designs, we have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published data relating to the incidence of post-operative secondary femoral shaft fractures in all types of intramedullary nails used in the management of trochanteric (AO classification 31-A) hip fractures over the last 30 years.

We identified the study population using a Medline search of the English literature from 1980 to 2010. We used the key words “extra capsular fracture” or “trochanteric fracture nail”. We also used the “related articles” feature in PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) to identify similar studies. We included all case series and randomised controlled trials, but excluded all reviews. We included data from all studies on intramedullary nailing of trochanteric hip fractures, but excluded data on operative fractures or early post-operative fractures that were attributed to a missed operative fracture of the femur, and studies of purely subtrochanteric fractures. We excluded all peri-operative fractures because we were trying to study a post-operative complication. We excluded all non-English language studies.

Two observers independently extracted the data for the population, intervention, incidence of secondary femoral shaft fracture and time from operation to secondary femoral shaft fracture from each relevant article. Differences were resolved by discussion between all three authors, and a joint review of any papers where there was a difference of opinion.

We pooled data across studies and calculated p values for each comparison using the Chi-square statistic with Yates correction for unequal variances. Statistical analysis between the groups was carried out using GraphPad InStat version 3.00 for Windows 95, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA.

Section snippets

Results

We identified 93 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We excluded 4 of these studies from the analysis because they were not commercially available and usually experimental nails developed by the individual hospitals. We included the remaining 89 studies for further analysis of their results.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57

Discussion

Post operative secondary femoral shaft fracture occurred with most types of nail. Some of the possible causes for these fractures that have been suggested in the studies we have examined include;

  • Large distal screws used for distal locking of the nails.

  • Large and rigid distal end of the nail causing greater stress forces, as opposed to a thinner tapered more flexible tip. Those implants made of titanium will also have greater elasticity in comparison to those made of stainless steel.

  • Increased

Conclusions

The results of this study indicate that there is a difference in the occurrence of secondary fracture of the femur related to the design of the nail used. Most significantly that biaxial nails have a significantly lower risk of fracture than uniaxial nails. Modification to the nail design appears to be reducing the incidence of this complication, but further studies using large patient numbers are required to decide future developments in nail design, and to reduce the incidence of this

Conflict of interest

M.J. Parker has received honorarium and travel expenses from a number of commercial companies for giving lectures on different aspects of hip fracture treatment and on the design of implants used to treat proximal femoral fractures. In addition he has received royalties from B Brawn Ltd. related to the design and development of an implant used for the internal fixation of intracapsular hip fractures. Neither of the other authors have any conflict of interest with this paper.

References (96)

  • G. Heinert et al.

    Intramedullary osteosynthesis of complex proximal femoral fractures with the Targon PF nail

    Injury

    (2007)
  • S.E. Honkonen et al.

    Second-generation cephalomedullary nails in the treatment of reverse obliquity intertrochanteric fractures of the proximal femur

    Injury

    (2004)
  • S. Kawaguchi et al.

    Cutting-out of the lag screw after internal fixation with the Asiatic gamma nail

    Injury

    (1998)
  • P. Krastman et al.

    The Holland nail: a universal implant for fractures of the proximal femur and the femoral shaft

    Injury

    (2004)
  • P. Mereddy et al.

    The AO/ASIF proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA): a new design for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures

    Injury

    (2009)
  • E. Rebuzzi et al.

    IMHS clinical experience in the treatment of peritrochanteric fractures. The results of a multicentric Italian study of 981 cases

    Injury

    (2002)
  • K. Sehat et al.

    The use of the long gamma nail in proximal femoral fractures

    Injury

    (2005)
  • R.K. Simmermacher et al.

    The AO/ASIF-proximal femoral nail (PFN): a new device for the treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures

    Injury

    (1999)
  • R.K. Simmermacher et al.

    The new proximal femoral nail antirotation (PFNA) in daily practice: results of a multicentre clinical study

    Injury

    (2008)
  • D.A. Verettas et al.

    Systematic effects of surgical treatment of hip fractures: gliding screw-plating vs intramedullary nailing

    Injury

    (2010)
  • W.W. Williams et al.

    Complications associated with the use of the gamma nail

    Injury

    (1992)
  • P. Helwig et al.

    Finite element analysis of four different implants inserted in different positions to stabilize an idealized trochanteric femoral fracture

    Injury

    (2009)
  • M. Parker et al.

    Hip fracture

    BMJ

    (2006)
  • M.J. Parker et al.

    Gamma and other cephalocondylic intramedullary nails versus extramedullary implants for extracapsular hip fractures in adults

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev

    (2008)
  • J.O. Anglen et al.

    Nail or plate fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: changing pattern of practice. A review of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (2008)
  • M.L. Forte et al.

    Provider factors associated with intramedullary nail use for intertrochanteric hip fractures

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (2010)
  • M. Bhandari et al.

    Gamma nails revisited: gamma nails versus compression hip screws in the management of intertrochanteric fractures of the hip: a meta-analysis

    J Orthop Trauma

    (2009)
  • C.I. Adams et al.

    Prospective randomized controlled trial of an intramedullary nail versus dynamic screw and plate for intertrochanteric fractures of the femur

    J Orthop Trauma

    (2001)
  • L. Ahrengart et al.

    A randomized study of the compression hip screw and Gamma nail in 426 fractures

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (2002)
  • A.K. Aune et al.

    Gamma nail vs compression screw for trochanteric femoral fractures 15 reoperations in a prospective, randomized study of 378 patients

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1994)
  • T.M. Barton et al.

    A comparison of the long gamma nail with the sliding hip screw for the treatment of AO/OTA 31-A2 fractures of the proximal part of the femur: a prospective randomized trial

    J Bone Joint Surg Am

    (2010)
  • M.R. Baumgaertner et al.

    Intramedullary versus extramedullary fixation for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (1998)
  • C. Bellabarba et al.

    Percutaneous treatment of peritrochanteric fractures using the Gamma nail

    Clin Orthop Relat Res

    (2000)
  • P. Benum et al.

    Gamma nail versus CHS in intertrochanteric and subtrochanteric femoral fractures—a preliminary report of a prospective randomized study

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (1992)
  • P. Bienkowski et al.

    A new intramedullary nail device for the treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures: perioperative experience

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • C. Boldin et al.

    The proximal femoral nail (PFN)—a minimal invasive treatment of unstable proximal femoral fractures: a prospective study of 55 patients with a follow-up of 15 months

    Acta Orthop Scand

    (2003)
  • S.H. Brindle et al.

    The gamma nail for pertrochanteric fractures of the femur: a prospective comparison with the dynamic hip screw

    J Bone Joint Surg

    (1990)
  • C.H. Crawford et al.

    The trochanteric nail versus the sliding hip screw for intertrochanteric hip fractures: a review of 93 cases

    J Trauma

    (2006)
  • J. Davis et al.

    Pertrochanteric fractures treated with the Gamma nail: technique and report of early results

    Orthopedics

    (1991)
  • J.N.S. Davison et al.

    Nail versus plate: a prospective randomised trial comparing the intramedullary hip screw and classic hip screw for internal fixation of extracapsular fractures of the proximal femur. Results after one year

    J Bone Joint Surg Br

    (1996)
  • P.L. Docquier et al.

    Complications associated with gamma nailing. A review of 439 cases

    Acta Orthop Belg

    (2002)
  • N.E. Efstathopoulos et al.

    Intramedullary fixation of intertrochanteric hip fractures: a comparison of two implant designs

    Int Orthop

    (2007)
  • A. Ekeland et al.

    Reoperations after use of gamma nail or hip compression screw for proximal femoral fractures

    J Bone Joint Surg Br

    (1993)
  • W. Ekstrom et al.

    Functional outcome in treatment of unstable trochanteric and subtrochanteric fractures with the proximal femoral nail and the Medoff sliding plate

    J Orthop Trauma

    (2007)
  • F. Fogagnolo et al.

    Intramedullary fixation of pertrochanteric hip fractures with the short AO-ASIF proximal femoral nail

    Arch Orthop Trauma Surg

    (2004)
  • P. Fornander et al.

    Swedish experience with the Gamma nail versus the sliding hip screw in 209 randomised cases

    Int Orthop

    (1994)
  • P. Fornander et al.

    Swedish experience of the first 209 randomized patients with Gamma nail vs. screw-plate

    Acta Orthop Belg

    (1992)
  • J.P. Forthomme et al.

    Treatment of trochanteric fractures of the femur using the gamma nail (apropos of a series of 92 cases)

    Acta Orthop Belg

    (1993)
  • Cited by (113)

    • Short versus long intramedullary nails for intertrochanteric hip fracture: Meta-analysis

      2024, Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia
    • Short versus long intramedullary nails for intertrochanteric hip fracture: Meta-analysis

      2023, Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text